In a field of self-described progressive candidates, a centrist Democrat is emerging.

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, 52, touts that up to 30 percent of Montanans who voted for Trump also voted for Bullock. He’s also proud of pushing Medicaid expansion through a Republican legislature.

But while a majority of Montana voters approve of the governor, a Morning Consult poll showed 56 percent of respondents nationwide had never heard of Bullock.

Bullock has long stressed his experience fighting “dark money,” or undisclosed funds in elections. He’s even featured as a protagonist in the 2018 feature-length documentary entitled “Dark Money.”

In June 2018, Bullock signed an executive order that required many companies submitting bids for government projects to disclose their campaign contributions — even to nonprofits that aren’t otherwise required to disclose their donors.

As Montana’s attorney general, Bullock defended a century-old Montana state law that banned corporate spending in elections. That challenged Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations, unions and certain nonprofits to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections. While the Montana Supreme Court upheld the corporate political spending ban, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Montana’s law, saying it conflicted with the Citizens United ruling and First Amendment rights of corporations.

In 2015, Bullock also helped push Montana’s Disclose Act, which demanded more transparency in state elections. The law since has been challenged and is still intact, but in February, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case

Here’s what you need to know about Bullock’s personal and political finances:

Bullock sued the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department in July. Why? To protect a rule requiring political nonprofits to disclose their donors, after the Treasury Department said it would no longer enforce that rule. The case is pending.

Despite Bullock’s opposition to corporate donations, his PAC received $20,000 from law firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP. Campaign finance law treats donations from limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships differently than corporate donations as long as the LLCs and LLPs name the individual partners from the companies that made the donations. In this case, the law firm donation was not attributed to an individual.

Bullock raised $3.3 million during his 2016 race for governor and $1.9 million during his 2012 race, according to data from the National Institute on Money in Politics. In both 2016 and 2012, his top donors came from government agencies, the education sector, lawyers and lobbyists and people in the finance, insurance and real estate industries.

⦁From 2005 to 2014, Bullock and his wife, Lisa, reported earning a total $1.6 million and donated $66,000 to charity. During that period, they reported paying $229,000 in federal income tax, according to 10 years worth of federal tax returns he released to the media.

⦁In July, Bullock became chairman of the nonpartisan National Governors Association. In 2015, he led the Democratic Governors Association, which aims to elect Democratic state executives. During Bullock’s term at the Democratic Governors Association, the group raised more than $25 million.

⦁When Bullock was chairman of the Democratic Governors Association in 2015, a female employee accused one of his senior staff members, Kevin O’Brien, of sexual harassment — and O’Brien was fired. O’Brien later became a senior adviser for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and while in City Hall, two women alleged O’Brien sexually harassed them. Bullock came under fire for not informing de Blasio’s office of the previous allegations. Bullock wrote in a Medium post: “Four years ago I fell short in my role preventing sexual harassment. I’m sorry, and I’m committed to doing better.”

HELENA — Youth suicide, honoring an officer, coal plants, switchblades, and plastic straws: lawmakers have a lot to discuss during Week 3 of the legislative session. Here are a handful of topics to follow.

Bill honors fallen Broadwater County deputy

The murder of Broadwater County Deputy Mason Moore in 2017 shook Montana’s law enforcement community. This session, Rep. Julie Dooling, R-Helena, wants to honor Moore by renaming Highway 287, where the deputy lost his life, in his honor. HB 156 would create the Mason Moore Memorial Highway and place signs with the officer’s name, badge number, and date of death at mile marker 109. The current bill draft does not specify how much of the highway will be included, but it directs Department of Transportation to include the Mason Moore memorial highway in state maps. The House Transportation Committee will hear the bill at 3 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 21, in Room 455.

Lawmaker proposes state purchase of Colstrip power plant

As neighboring states reduce their use of fossil fuels for energy production, shutdowns loom over coal mining and power generation in Colstrip. Rep. Rodney Garcia, R-Billings, suggests the state step in and save the town with HB 203. The bill would create the Montana Energy and Security Act, supplying up to $500 million in state bonds to buy coal plants and establishing a five-person public power commission to purchase Montana coal plants and oversee them as state-owned assets. Garcia told the Billings Gazette that he drafted the legislation in response to Colstrip workers’ concerns. The House Committee on Energy, Technology, and Federal Relations will hold a hearing on HB 203 at 3 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 21, in Room 472.

House explores strategies for youth health and safety

Three bills are on the docket this week that address issues facing Montana’s teenagers and school-age kids.

HB 187 would channel $1.6 million from the state’s General Fund to the Department of Health and Human Services to provide grants for youth suicide prevention programs. A companion bill, HB 186, would create a two-year depression and mental health screening pilot program in schools supported by $1 million from the General Fund. Both bills are sponsored by Rep. Mary Ann Dunwell, D-Helena. The House Human Services Committee will hear the bills at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 22, in Room 152.

HB 178 would prohibit texting and driving by minors, with fines starting at $50 for the first offense and rising to $200 for the second offense. The House Transportation Committee will consider the bill at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 23, in Room 455.

Senate considers single-use plastics

Plastic straws created quite a stir in 2018, with airlines, cities, and restaurants nationwide placing restrictions or outright bans on the products. Montana lawmakers will mull their own straw regulations with SB 120, sponsored by Sen. Sue Malek, D-Missoula. The bill would prohibit restaurants from providing plastic straws unless a customer specifically asks for one.

Malek is also sponsoring SB 121, which would impose a 4-cent fee on each single-use carry-out bag provided by retailers. The bill would also require plastic and paper bags in Montana to be 100-percent recyclable and printed with the phrase “Please recycle this bag.”

Both bills will be heard by the Senate Business, Labor, and Economic Affairs Committee at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 23, in Room 422.

A state ban on switchblades could get cut

In the 1950s, a wave of panic about switchblades and gang violence swept the nation, resulting in a ban on the knives that lingers today. HB 155, sponsored by Casey Knudsen, R-Malta, would repeal Montana’s switchblade law. Currently, it’s illegal to carry a switchblade in the state or have one in a car, offenses punishable by a $500 fine and up to six months in prison. Collectors are allowed to own switchblades, however, if they register the knives with their county sheriff.

The House Judiciary Committee will have a hearing on the bill at 8 a.m. on Monday, Jan. 21, in Room 137. Even if HB 155 passes, the 1958 Federal Switchblade Act still prohibits importing switchblades or purchasing them through interstate commerce.

HELENA — It’s a new year with a new legislative session around the corner, but an old rift has re-emerged among Montana’s Republican lawmakers.

The split first surfaced around a decade ago, when a small group of Republican lawmakers began working with minority Democrats to pass legislation, raising ire among other GOP party members. The party seemed to be on the mend during the 2017 session, but the reopening of the old wound became apparent in November 2018 as GOP factions vied for leadership positions. It showed itself again in December when the House Rules Committee met to debate amendments that would change the way representatives are assigned to committees, and the way the full House can bring bills stagnating in those committees to the floor for debate.

Currently, the House speaker makes committee assignments. Blast motions required a 60-vote supermajority. Last month’s proposed amendments would model those processes after norms in the state Senate, where senators approve committee assignment and re-referral of bills and need only a simple majority, or 51 votes, to move bills out of committee.

Republicans will occupy 58 House seats in the 2019 session. Democrats will occupy 42.

A group of moderate GOP members who occasionally works with Democrats supports the changes. GOP leadership in the House, however, does not.

The House Rules Committee adjourned last month without discussing the amendments. The issue will be taken up again once lawmakers gavel in the 2019 session.

In the meantime, some Republican lawmakers have been rallying opposition to the changes.

Rep. Brad Tschida, R-Missoula

“There’s been a practice in the past of a small group of members of our [Republican] caucus fracturing off and creating three minority parties: them, the Democrats, and the remainder of the Republican caucus,” said Brad Tschida, R-Missoula, the House Majority Leader-elect. “These individuals who are not elected to any particular position, then control the narrative and outcome of the session without being accountable to anyone.”

A few days before Christmas, Tschida sent a letter to county-level Republican central committees, urging them to “put an end to a needless fight.”

Tschida’s letter accused those minority GOP members of trying to “bend the rules” and gain “control behind the scenes” by working with Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock to expand Medicaid, implement a pre-kindergarten program, and increase taxes.

Switching the blast motion requirement from 60 votes to 51 votes allows the smaller Republican caucus to team up with Democrats and undermine the GOP majority, Tschida argued.

“The will of Montanans is 58 Republican votes, not 51,” he wrote.

Some central committees responded to Tschida’s call to action. The Cascade County Republican Central Committee sent an email aimed at local Republicans calling out a group of “RINOS,” or “Republicans in name only,” for attempting to cede GOP control to minority Democrats.

“Think of the consequences if you do nothing,” the email implored. It then claimed that 14 GOP representatives intend to support the rules change and listed the lawmakers’ contact information.

Cascade County Republican Central Committee Chair Sheridan Buck did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The Yellowstone County Republicans Facebook page posted a similar critique of the same 14 lawmakers on Dec. 29.

Rep. Nancy Ballance, R-Hamilton

Among the lawmakers named by the central committees is Rep. Nancy Ballance, R-Hamilton. Ballance chaired the powerful House Appropriations Committee the past two sessions and will share that role with Rep. Carl Glimm, R-Kila, this time around.

“Things are heating up,” Ballance said in an interview. “We have people joining [together] and putting [out] opinions who have no idea what they’re talking about.”

The spat follows a relatively peaceful 2017 session in which Republican lawmakers seemed to settle a feud that first emerged around 2007.

“It was a little better in ’17, because there was not a lot of money to fight over in the House,” Tschida said.

But 2019 could prove far more contentious for the two Republican factions.

“What can we work on together? Because essentially, the group … that’s more constitutionally conservative, we don’t have anything to offer. We’re just saying let’s follow the espoused goals and objectives of the party platform,” Tschida said.

When a central plank of the state’s GOP platform is reducing taxes, it’s hard to compromise on issues like Medicaid expansion or a pre-K program. Those bills inevitably include a fiscal note, Tschida said, and the money has to come from somewhere.

“The reason I don’t think the small group of 13 or 14 members [are] willing to work with their Republican counterparts is because they’ve already struck deals with the other side,” Tschida said.

“They’ve got to return a favor for a favor given,” he continued. “That’s, to me, one of the distasteful things about what we do.”

Ballance, however, is adamant that the 14 Republican lawmakers named in central committee emails have not struck any backroom deals regarding the House rules change.

“We have made no deals with the Democrats,” Ballance said. “None whatsoever. He’s making that up out of whole cloth. There’s no deal that’s been cut.”

The House rules fight could set the stage for a longer battle among Republican lawmakers during the 2019 session.

Montana’s House of Representatives in 1989 voted to change the blast motion requirement from a 51-vote simple majority to a 60-vote supermajority. In the decades since, Ballance said, both Democrats and Republicans have used the rule to make backroom deals and prevent bills from being debated on the floor.

“Everybody needs to have an equal opportunity to have their bill heard,” Ballance said.

Rep. Geraldine Custer, R-Forsyth

Rep. Geraldine Custer, R-Forsyth, said she thinks bills she has supported have been sent to “kill committees” for being too moderate.

“We all represent the same number of people. I still represent the Democrats in my district just as I do the Republicans. Their livelihoods matter just as much,” she said.

Custer was also called out in emails as a Republican likely to support the House rules change.

She said she takes issue with leadership trying to put public pressure on moderate Republicans like her to toe the party line instead of trying to find a compromise on the rules issue.

“You try to unify your party. You don’t try to make it disintegrate,” Custer said.

More than changing the blast motion requirement, Custer said she wants House lawmakers to have a say in committee assignments, which would remove some of the speaker’s authority.

“The speaker has had all the power to decide what bill goes to what committee, and can send it to a committee stacked with people he knows will kill it,” Custer said.

In other cases, Ballance said, the speaker can choose not to assign a bill to committee, or assign it too late, effectively killing it.

That’s what happened in 2017 when then-Speaker Austin Knudsen refused to schedule a floor vote on a bill that would have allowed counties to hold an all-mail ballot in a special congressional election in May of that year.

“The ones in power want to keep their power,” Ballance said. “But most of the discussions are not about what’s best for the people of Montana. It’s ‘what’s best for my political career or my political ideology?’”

Tschida, however, said bills tend to flounder in committees simply because they’re not effective legislation.

“I have no interest in becoming a party boss and exerting influence,” he said.

Reaching out to the central committees, Tschida said, can effectively apply grassroots pressure on lawmakers to follow their party’s platform.

“I think what they’ve done is said, ‘Here are the requirements the Republicans set forth for being a Republican,’” Tschida said. “I think in some cases the rhetoric gets a little heated, but I don’t think it’s out of line.”

Leia is an award-winning reporter who has covered the environment and public policy in Colorado, Utah, and now the Montana capital. She has a master's degree in journalism from the University of Colorado Boulder. Contact her at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or (406) 465-3386.

HELENA — A proposed change to the way the House considers bills has been tabled, for now.

In November, Democrats and some Republicans on the Legislative Council proposed rule changes that would allow lawmakers to move bills to the House floor with a simple majority vote, instead of the supermajority currently required.

In the past, some hot-button bills floundered and died in “kill committees” without enough votes to push them through. In the case of some bills, the House Speaker never assigned the bill to a committee for a hearing, effectively killing it.

In an effort to limit the ability of the leadership to hamstring bills through such parliamentary tactics, a handful of Republicans sided with House Democrats to support the rule changes.

Typically, an interim House Rules Committee debates and votes on proposed rule changes prior to the start of the Legislative session, which begins Jan. 7. But Republicans voted along party lines Tuesday to adjourn the interim committee without debate, and without taking action on the proposed rule changes.

According to committee chairman Rep. Derek Skees, R-Kalispell, lawmakers will take up the issue again on Jan. 8, the second day of the 2019 session.

House Minority Leader Casey Schreiner, D-Great Falls, addressed the committee during Tuesday’s interim House Rules Committee hearing and urged its members to give the rules serious consideration. Schreiner said majority rule is at the heart of the democratic process, and the House should operate by the same rules as the Senate, which does not require a supermajority to “blast” stalled bills out of committee or bring measures to the floor for debate.

“It was pure obstructionism for [the Republicans] to shut down a committee in the middle of business,” Schreiner said after the hearing.

Schreiner is not a member of the rules committee but did testify during public comment on the proposed rule change.

The Legislative Council proposed eight changes to House rules — changes Schreiner said Democrats have sought for years. Democrats have been in the minority in all but two sessions dating back to 1993. In 2005 and in 2009 the House was tied 50-50.

The most dramatic changes would model certain House voting procedures after Senate protocols — specifically those for appointing House standing committees, adopting rules, and re-referral or withdrawal of bills.

In the past, the House has required a three-fifths majority on those measures. By following the Senate’s lead, the 100-member House would need only a simple majority — 51 votes — to move bills to the floor for debate.

Skees said he needed more time to consider the rule-change proposals and their consequences.

“This is a process that would dramatically change the way the House does business. It’s the way we’ve done business for 30 years,” Skees said.

Skees also called the changes “horrible” and said they would sap the majority party’s power and undermine what he views as a mandate from Montana voters to follow the Republican platform.

Republicans currently hold a 58-42 majority in the House. A small group of GOP lawmakers occasionally work with Democrats on certain issues, including the rule-change proposals.

Skees called the group an “oligarchy” trying to manipulate the system.

“Why [do] members of the majority caucus want to pass rules that weaken majority caucus?” Skees said. “That’s my question. That takes an insight into the motives and minds of the individuals doing it, and I can’t go there yet.”

Schreiner argued the proposed changes make House processes more democratic.

“I think we need to take political parties out of this and talk about the number of votes,” he said. “Every person represents a certain number of people in Montana, [and] 51 [votes] represents the majority. It doesn’t matter whose side you’re on, that’s the way you pass legislation.”